Issues: Scope too small, expectations too high or sky too bright?

[D4N]

When comparing your optics to those of Charles Messier you need to remember that he had the advantage of living before the light bulb and the internal combustion engine were invented. He had much clearer and darker skies than most of us could ever hope for! Dark skies are really important for the faint fuzzies, your eyes just can pick them out against light pollution.

If your looking for clusters Beehive is a lovely one and easy to spot at the moment, it is just to the right of Jupiter.

I think most people looking through a scope will be disappointed at first by the faint fuzzies.

I started imaging as I quickly realised that I would need an enormous scope to visually achieve the views I wanted. Now I enjoy both and will even sit looking though one scope or bins whilst my other scope is busy capturing faint fuzzies.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ags]

Pig, how dare you malign Mars? It is the most wonderful planet to view, in my opinion!

[Pig]

LoL.....Not for me, its just a reddish sphere at best and a tad underwhelming....malign is also a bit strong compared to my description, but I am very pleased that you get great views

[Liquid360]

I agree. It's awesome... for around five minutes, at which point it becomes a tiny brownish red orb. Tis at this point which I yawn and move on [emoji6]

Pig, how dare you malign Mars? It is the most wonderful planet to view, in my opinion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stu]

LoL.....Not for me, its just a reddish sphere at best and a tad underwhelming....malign is also a bit strong compared to my description, but I am very pleased that you get great views

You've obviously not seen it at its best Shaun. It's a tricky customer, but I find it pretty amazing when conditions and positioning are at their best.

No where near as reliably interesting as Jupiter though, I'll admit that!!

[Ags]

A sobering thought: When you look up at the Orion nebula with your naked eyes, that is as bright as it gets (in terms of surface brightness). No telescope can ever make it brighter for human eyes - a large telescope can only make the nebula much, much bigger with the same surface brightness. My modest telescope will make the nebula much larger, but considerably fainter (in terms of surface brightness) than my unaided eyes see it.

[D4N]

Not entirely true. The problem you have is that whilst your scope is gathering more light than your eyes you are only focusing on a tiny part of it because the focal length is so long. If you increase aperture by more than the magnification you will gain an increase in brightness.

The Vixen 2.1x42 bino's are a prime example of this, the magnification is small but the aperture increase of 42mm compared to about 7mm for the unaided eye is huge.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ags]

The upper limit on brightness is imposed by the size of the eye pupil. The Vixens you mention would have a 20mm exit pupil, which is too big even for owls 

Effectively, the vixens have a 10-14mm objective, which is consistent with reports users can see 1 magnitude fainter. 

[Ags]

...however these are very interesting binoculars and 1.5 magnitudes gain is not to be sneezed at. Now I want a pair... yet another entry added to the wish list. Thanks for mentioning these!

For those who are curious: http://alpha-lyrae.co.uk/2014/10/25/vixen-sg-2-1x42-binoculars-review/.

[Gazabone]

Some of the "M"s aren't that easy and sometimes you will be pointing in the right place but you don't see anything. It's only when you start moving the scope gently around and realise that bit of slightly lighter grey is moving along with the Stars that you realise you were on target all along. As others have said quality AP images are hours worth of exposures.

If you happen across the "grey smudge" keep with it, look at it and particularly around it (averted vision) and gradually details will start to pop out at you. Personally I find that as enjoyable as the "more stunning" objects like M42.

A nice target that will be coming into view in a few weeks time is the ring nebula (M57). Again, as others have said, keep with it. I'm sure sure astronomy would not be quite as much fun if it was easy!

[D4N]

They don't have a fixed exit pupil but you are right that you generally don't get the full benefit of any optical instrument as if the exit pupil was too close to the size of your own pupil they would be very hard to position correctly.

They are great fun to use and I often spot clusters with them that I then take a closer look at with my scope.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pipnina]

They don't have a fixed exit pupil but you are right that you generally don't get the full benefit of any optical instrument as if the exit pupil was too close to the size of your own pupil they would be very hard to position correctly.

They are great fun to use and I often spot clusters with them that I then take a closer look at with my scope.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So the exit pupil has an effect on overall magnification... is this why the huge telescopes (VLT/E-ELT) have low F ratios and big holes in the mirror for the camera?

[ronin]

So the exit pupil has an effect on overall magnification

Really the other way round, the magnification effects the exit pupil.

The exit pupil is the objective diameter divided by the magnification.

As the objective is fixed then it is the magnification that can vary and so vary the exit pupil.

Arguement's sort of rage between 1mm or 2mm being the best.

At an exit pupil of 0.5mm the eye defects and problems start to be heavily apparent.

[Ags]

Small exit pupils show up eye defects, except for astigmatism - it is reduced with smaller exit pupils.

[Pig]

I thought the exit pupil was the eyepiece focal length divided by the focal ratio of the scope  

[Ags]

Both formulas are correct.

200mm F5 (fl 1000mm)

10mm EP

exit pupil = EP fl / focal ratio = 10 / 5 = 2mm

exit pupil = aperture / mag = 200 / 100 = 2mm

[AndyWB]

In the two months I've spent with my telescope, I have been rather disappointed at everything bar observing the moon and jupiter. (those, especially the moon, looked pretty impressive!)

I have no idea if my expectations are still too optimistic, if my sky is just too bright or if my scope is just too small.

...

    ~a slightly depressed and distressed pip

Hang in there Pip,

So, I made the mistake of assuming that M1 would be easy to see. It's first on the list, right? Wrong - it was a right pain to find. I actually had to spot it in my 250px before I found it in my 130p, and that was from a dark site on a good night. I've not seen M51 with my 130p at all.

If you've not gone somewhere really dark, it's worth it. Acey is right - you want to be able to see the Milky Way from horizon to horizon. Then, I'd add, make sure you keep the lights off - or at least your observing eye closed/covered - for a half hour or more, so that you properly adapt to the dark. You want to be able to see by starlight. Then try M42 again.

The first time Iooked at M42 was from my parent's garden, which is darker than near where I live, and it was unimpressive in my 130p. However, the same scope, from somewhere as dark as Acey says - it blew my mind. Yes, it was still just grey, but there was so much more shape.

If you're under light pollution, I find that planets, open clusters and double stars work through the light pollution.